The Instigator
EricGumina
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
IBeatEricGumina
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Reproductive Technology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 52007
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

EricGumina

Pro

one thing that reproductive technologies provide public is that it gives infertile couples the ability to have children. more than one in three of these children are a success. another advantage is that these couples that naturally could not create a child are able to have children that are there own. also there is a better chance for a healthy child with these treatments for the couples that cant produce

sources
17779-assisted-reproductive-technologies-blessing-curse-both
IBeatEricGumina

Con


Yes, although it is true that reproductive technologies provide infertile couples the ability to have children it is not true that the couples may have a healthy child. Mothers who go through ART (or Assisted Reproductive Technology) have a higher chance of having multiple births. According to http://www.cdc.gov...: “multiple births pose substantial risks to both mothers and infants, including pregnancy complications, preterm delivery, and low birth weight infants.” These problems stated by http://www.cdc.gov... can all lead to death of the mother, death of the child, and/or death of both the mother and child. So, by being on the pro side (for ART) you are essentially saying that you are ok with mothers and babies dying.


Debate Round No. 1
EricGumina

Pro

While I do not in fact agree with mothers and infants dieing in complications of child birth. You by comparison are saying that you deny couples the pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as according to the Constitution you want to prohibit couples for there god given right that it is there body there for there decision. it is not the place of the government to say how they want to control the bodies of the couples. also if it may not be considered "Moral" by a certain persons point of view. it is not them who are getting the procedures done it is the couples decision there for I ask my opponent "who are you to play god and tell a couple that they can't have a child" and as you can see in ( http://www.archives.gov... ) that people have there American rights to say what happens to their body
IBeatEricGumina

Con

I'm not playing god and I am certainly not telling a couple that they can not have a child. What I am saying is that reproductive technology has horrible effects to it; of these horrible effects one of them may be neurological problems with the child and or mother. Neurological problems and other symptoms may consist of: "changes in weight or sleep, psychomotor agitation or retardation, fatigue or loss of energy, feelings of worthlessness or guilt, concentration difficulties and suicidal ideation" (http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org...), these problems can be seen in both the mother and the child.
Debate Round No. 2
EricGumina

Pro

however it is up to the couple to decide if they are willing to take that risk. also compared to many other types of life altering operations that the couple could undergo say an unwanted abortion this technology isn't as bad as a abortion or other surgeries and operations that a couple can do because instead of taking life they are bringing it. also to rebuttal your earlier argument that it can cause many problems according to http://www.infertilityfocus.com... "ART (assisted reproductive technology) is not just about conception taking place, its aim is to ensure a healthy sustainable pregnancy."
IBeatEricGumina

Con

The aim of ART may be to ensure a healthy sustainable pregnancy, but the horrible effects previously stated can happen or occur either way. Not only can ART cause harmful effects to the child and mother but they also "use, storage and destruction of excess IVF embryos, and research involving embryos" )http://www.bioethics.org.au...). An embryo is "growing organism after being a zygote and before being a fetus" (http://www.biology-online.org...).
Debate Round No. 3
EricGumina

Pro

according to "http://www.americanprogress.org...; Reproductive Technologies and their treatments make up approximately 10% of the reproductive age population. so the fact is, is that this is a wide spread technology and treatment and the very idea that someone would refuse to allow these couples even though they have already started treatment is ludicrous and unthinkable.
IBeatEricGumina

Con

Reproductive technology can make it so the children and parent are not so connected in their relationships. It is proven that more kids have distant relationships with their parents through ART. http://www.eolss.net...;
Debate Round No. 4
EricGumina

Pro

according to "http://www.myfertility.ca...; it states that doing this treatment can help cause twins. so for a couple that is infertile this can be a miracle. it also states shows that as patients start to nationally use these techniques that the federal government has less of a say in weather or not they are able to make it illegal.
IBeatEricGumina

Con

Yes in using this treatment there is a higher possibility of having twins, but when a mother has multiple births in using reproductive technology it can lead to many problems as stated in my previous arguments. There are also other ethical issues raised by ART such as the "fundamental issues of human dignity raised by the technology of surrogate motherhood. Preservation of human dignity is an important role of government. Reducing humans to commodities that can be traded in the manner of farm animals is highly destructive of human dignity" (Source: Goldmark, S. M.Stingl, Alexander. "Counterpoint: Surrogate Motherhood Attacks Human Dignity By Buying And Selling Children." Points Of View: Surrogate Mothers (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 14 Apr. 2014).
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by corridor 2 years ago
corridor
I actrully agree with both sides. In the beggining I was more on the pro side but the con had very convincing aguments. Not saying that the pro side was bad, they as well also had a well agrument. Also I love Con's name.
Singed
Justin Hall 5th per
Posted by foreverkayleigh 2 years ago
foreverkayleigh
The pro side had more evidence and is well conducted. I believe there are better options than reproductive technology. I am on the con side. Kayleigh Saal per. 5
Posted by PurplePanda194 2 years ago
PurplePanda194
I agree with the pro side because they had great evidence. i also agree because the people who are getting it can make their own decisions ( they are big boys and girls), and if they choose to get it they should understand the consequences and effects. but if you don't agree why think of reproductive technology, when there are other possibilities like adopting or even having someone else carry their child
Zakery C. Period 5
Posted by bgarn 2 years ago
bgarn
Brinkley G. 5
I agree with both sides of the argument. Women and men that are unable to have children deserve to have kids if they so choose. Also, con brought up a good point. This reproductive technology has issues and can cause people to spend lots of money and get a deformed child or no child at all. So both sides are really good making it hard for me to choose one or the other.
Posted by mgarside98 2 years ago
mgarside98
Mgarside98 is Michael Garside, Pd. 5
Posted by mgarside98 2 years ago
mgarside98
I am for the pro side of the argument. Yes, reproductive technology may have its flaws but so does any other thing in this world. It is a valuable piece of the world as it allows those people who are unfortunate not to have children be able to conceive a child. Yes, it may be unethical and seem as someone is playing God by creating a child through technology such as in-vitro, it is needed.
Posted by PreciousC 2 years ago
PreciousC
I agree with the pro side; as this side stated, this technology gives infertile people the chance to have children. If the child is born with defects because of the technology, a dedicated parent would love and take care of the child regardless, which is all that truly matters. (Precious C. Period 5)
Posted by numba1_person 2 years ago
numba1_person
I believe that reproductive technology is a positive thing. I agree with the pro because he has a lot of reasons that can happen and are happening in today's society.
Ariana E. P5
Posted by ajawesomesauce 2 years ago
ajawesomesauce
I disagree with the reproductive technology. I believe the technology is bad because it can be harmful and lead to future disorders. i believe the CONS where more backed up and solid than the PROs.
Anthony D period 5
Posted by MAVSWILL42 2 years ago
MAVSWILL42
I am all for reproductive technology. The reason for this is that as stated in the argument above, if a couple is not able to naturally have a child, why not give them that joy of still being able to technically have a child of their own. Why would you take away the joy of being a parent away form somebody? Why some people say why not just adopt, although nothing is wrong with adopting, if a couple still wants to have their own child, why not let them?

William P. Period 5.
No votes have been placed for this debate.